Community empowerment gone mad?

Your comments

• The story of the co-opted councillor makes a powerful case for real community empowerment: if a vociferous minority is bad, a vociferous minority of one is worse. But empowerment needs to involve large numbers of people to avoid the dangers Ann Hartley writes about, and conventional approaches like Public Question Times nor community meetings will never do that.
  
  It seems to me that the only plausible way forward is to use internet-based referenda, each with a full range of plausible policy options on offer, accompanied by summaries of their pros and cons. We have no tradition of referenda in this county (unfortunately!) so it would take numerous trials to develop a framework that works; people would have to learn that government is mostly about compromise and finding the least-bad option.
  
  It would take perseverance, but it is surely achievable, and the potential benefits are enormous. The Swiss have used referenda (without benefit of modern technology) for many years, and there is good evidence that having a direct voice on individual policies makes them happier with their government. Why not us?

  David Bartholomew on 03 Mar 2009

• I think this piece makes a very important point, especially valid today.
  
  We tend to assume that 'horizontal' democracy (everyone has a vote on everything) is somehow an ideal. This ideal was not available to previous 'pen and paper' generations, but the wonders of the web now make it possible.
  
  In fact previous generations understood far better than we think the value of representative democracy. The founding fathers of the US for example apparently understood quite clearly the 'Tyranny of Democracy'.
  
  This article takes this conceptual point and makes it concrete. 'Everyone votes on everything' can, as it highlights, lead simply to parochialism and dominance by factions, by voters whose decisions are guided primarily by self-interest.
  
  The value of the representative is that they are chosen to be, hopefully, representative (this is not a perfect process) AND THEN given the responsibility for understanding the whole situation, and making decisions on that basis.
  
  If the UK were governed purely by national polls for all choices, it's not hard to imagine what the impact of (say) a TV programme about immigration, or capital punishment, or religious fanaticism could lead to in a "truly democratic" world.
  
  Just because we can give everyone a vote on everything doesn't mean we should.

  Colin Evans on 03 Mar 2009

• i was one of those vorafious committee people that fought heavily for the rights of tenants and was duly elected by democratic vote to represent their veiws of a housing board, i did this with relish and soon the officers of the association conspired to have me fired off the board, they then had to democratically elect someone from the tenants guess what there was no rule that banned me from standing again and the tenants voted me to represent them again, the officers changed the rules.
  
  i then became the chairperson of the local police committee which i served for 11 years including 4 as vice chair and 4 as chairperson, everyone was given a fair hearing.
  i woiuld say to this politician tenants reps have to undergo 4 years of intensive training to take on the role of board member unlike councillors who are selected by their political party first to stand for election and take little training and allow the officers of the council to dictate to them, who knows best what they want or dont want in their area the residents who live there not the officers who work 9 to 5 five days a week and live elsewhere

  anthony brankin on 03 Mar 2009

• The reason that vociferous people object is because they are not apathetic. They have not yet given up hope that individuals can make a difference in their communities. It may often be because they can see a bigger picture than councillors, who often have not read the papers before they turn up to meetings, who seem to believe everything they are told by officers and "experts", all of whom often have vested interests - be it their CV's, or macho egos, or simply money.
  
  Take incineration for example, councils should invite the objectors in and ask them questions and listen to what they have to say properly before making decisions, instead of pretending to consult with closed questions, and doing what they want regardless of how little sense it makes. My experience of councils and councillors often demonstrates the disgraceful combination of arrogance and ignorance, tinged with fear of listening to other views, or offering real consultation.

  joanna heselwood on 03 Mar 2009

• Anne Hartley is right in saying that people are mostly concerned about issues that are happening locally - particularly at a time when globalised, centrally managed and one-sizefitsall systems and issues such as banking, oil dependency and tackling climate change have been so badly mis-managed 'for the greater good'.
  
  In my experience working extensively with community organisations and councils including in Shropshire; those who develop a meaningful dialogue with their citizens in good times and difficult ones, find community engagement and empowerment saves them time, money and creates better happier communities.
  
  When Peak Oil hits pushes the price of driving children around the county out of control and people have no other alternative but to re-form the local schools she's concerned to close (we're talking in the next 10-15 years) maybe Anne will reflect again about the truth of the bigger picture and how much time she spent genuinely listening and representing her constituents. 'We' know what's best for people is clearly not the case. When I worked with councils in Shropshire in 2003; it was often felt that SCC was rather smug and non-inclusive in its decision making. It seems that little has changed.

  Ms L Duggan on 04 Mar 2009

• Community Empowerment should not mean giving a disproportionate amount of power to an unrepresentative minority. It's a process that requires resourcing through independent organisations (such as Community Empowerment Networks) that elect and hold accountable community representatives, training and supporting them to ensure they can participate fully in the partnership agenda. Inviting members of the public to a public meeting may have its place, but it's not community empowerment.

  David Burnby on 04 Mar 2009

• The worry I have about community empowerment is the Third Sector - it is great that people should have a greater say in what happens in their area, but surely they can exercise this "empowerment opportunity" through their elected representatives, or even stand themselves - why bark from the sidelines when you can actually play the game?
  
  Another danger of the current empowerment drive is to remove or weaken the effectiveness of Parish & Town Councils - sure they MUST be proactive in their communities, but even those that are doing all things correctly are at risk in this respect

  Rusty Adams on 04 Mar 2009

• There are legitimate concerns here. Central Government sometimes talks about "community representatives" and the like while simultaneously marginalising one kind of community representative, the elected (especially back-bench) councillor.
  
  However, there are tried ways of involving many more people in democratic decision-making without promoting irreconcileable, short-sighted or unrealistic policies: participatory budgeting is just one.
  
  When one council I was involved in many years ago faced a similar hard decision to that described in Shropshire, the administration's decision to reorganise the whole system and to close some schools followed on extensive consultation and reflected the messages received. That greatly strengthened the position of those who had to push through the decisions when the understandable rows began over particular closures. While in my opinion there is much to value in NIMBYism (without which we could be ruled by dictators), whatever system you have, it must allow for decisions at different levels so supporters of one school cannot in effect condemn another and devolved decision-making about schools does not work with an unlimited budget. That said, the "lower" the level at which the decision can fairly be taken, the better for democracy.

  SIMON BANKS on 04 Mar 2009

• I am struck in the piece by Ann Hartley by her own lack or reflection. There is a strong tinge here of the “we-know-best” attitude. Firstly, Ann does not actively interrogate the position of councillor. There is a continuation of the fiction that “we only have the interests of our constituents at heart”, when in fact the first rule of parliamentary (style) democracy is allegiance to the party first and foremost, hence ‘collective responsibility’. This view lies in the fundamental belief that only those who are elected (however ‘imperfect’ the system), are ‘right’ and therefore should have the loudest voice. Ann reveals this unreflexiveness in phrases like “…policies that are necessary for the good governance of the country”: does she never consider that she might actually be wrong and / or there might be other ways to do things. For over a decade we were told regularly that the only way to have an efficient, effective and profitable banking system was by a ‘light touch’. Is anyone arguing that now?
  
  If the ‘vociferous minority’ (code for ‘usual suspects’?) are too loud in their engagement then it begs the more important question: how are you engaging with your community? What active measures are you taking to engage effectively with your community? Are you still organising ‘public meetings’ which few people believe are effective or are you trying other mechanisms in other venues and forums to engage different and new communities? There are well established mechanism for these and organisations with the skills.
  
  I would suggest that those like Ann who hold the views that we must be wary of those who might be ‘overly engaged’ (vociferous etc) should ask themselves more regularly what can we do differently that will actively engage our communities. It seems to me a self defeating exercise to blame communities for being ‘apathetic’ if you are not prepared to ask yourself what can be done differently.
  
  

  Paul Teedon on 04 Mar 2009

• I'd echo the point that the article reflects the current lack of clarity about what terms like engagement, empowerment, participation, involvement etc actually mean. The council's role should be to create space and mechanisms through which local people can have greater involvement in decisions that affect them. To ensure that this is fair council's need to support an empowerment programme that works with communities, the ones that aren't always heard, to equip them with the skills and confidence to get involved. Just creating opportunities to "have your say" when there isn't a level playing field for all members of the community will result in the Nimbyism described.

  Kieran Barr on 04 Mar 2009

• Quite big questions are posed here.
  Firstly, if you cannot deal with vociferous minorities, you shouldn't be a councillor.
  Secondly, if you do not have the intellect to challenge officers, you shouldn't be a councillor.
  It is not easy to be a councillor at any level, and one's motivation must be very strong. It involves taking difficult and unpopular decisions. However, in the taking of long term decisions, the concept that today's vote is more valuable than tomorrows is morally reprehensible. If you lose your seat, that is the way of the world. I know full well that if you are not in the ruling group you can do nothing, so a balance has to be struck; today's vote or tomorrows. They should not conflict but if you are not up to the job, they will.
  Alan Craw

  Alan Craw on 04 Mar 2009

• Community empowerment has to be facilitated and developed, councillors have a role to play in doing this. What has not been mentioned so far in this discussion is the role of community-led planning - there is a long history now of parish planning and market town healthchecks, plus the experience of generally urban neighbourhood regeneration schemes. These models can be a very useful way of developing a kind of empowerment that should avoid many of the pitfalls. Have a look e.g. at www.communityledplanning.com
  

  Kathrin Luddecke on 04 Mar 2009

• I would point out that the late Lord Sandy Bruce-Lockhart came into politics as the leader of a vociferous minority when the Channel Tunnel was built. He became Leader of the LGA so do not underestimate what a 'vociferous minority' can produce. We are now an apathetic nation with regard to politics as we have had too soft a life for too long. If you look at the demise of empires it comes down to soft living, complacency and eventually disintegration of the 'empire'. To turn the argument on its head - surely Shropshires' 'vociferous minority' are now some of the elected Cllrs who may think they know it all but are pursuing policies because they think they know best. Whether we like it or not people are better informed and there is so much information out there that we, as elected Councillors, may fail to consult at our peril. One of the best cars produced was the Lexus - if anybody has the time take a look and see how long and how much consultation went in to produce that car because the Japanese wanted to get it right!

  Vanessa Churchman on 04 Mar 2009

• Like so many other things in life, community empowerment done badly is worse than no community empowerment at all.
  
  But that surely doesn't mean we don't try?
  
  Done properly, community empowerment compliments the traditional elected representative democratic model.

  Mark Leach on 05 Mar 2009

• I agreee broadly with theopinion of David Bartholomew. Except that it should not just be confined to internet based polling. We have forums here in Lincolnshire involving over one thousand memebers in a district. It also helps overcome the age gap.
  
  The real need, generally, is to get away from say a closed cell of Councillors, or vocal pressure group, who may try to disallow transparancy. Also Grievance and Standatds Board references do not always help and may hinder openess: if the procedures are used indiscriminately and as a way to intimidate.
  
  "

  John Charlesworth on 08 Mar 2009

• Community empowerment works when groups are able to represent their views and Councillors and officers act in a non-partisan way to do their best for the community. It is inappriopriate to presume that the Government Policy is always best when one size does not fit all, and when policies change with the political complexion of locally elected people who will only follow the party line.
  
  In South Somerset we have a variety of ways of involving local people which balance interests against the extreme lobby group or vociferous person,. We have Area Committees and Community Forums which are closer to local people's views, and although the process may not always produce what we desire, it works well and is far less frustrating than many alternatives - and ultimately far more democratic too

  Mike Allen, Area Development South Somerset District Council on 10 Mar 2009

• THE WHOLE POINT OF ELECTIONS IS TO APPOINT SOMEONE TO REPRESENT YOU- IF YOU THEN HAVE REAL COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT WHAT YOU END UP WITH IS ANARCHY , BECAUSE EVERYONE WILL PURSUE THEIR OWN AGENDA thus leading to a further breakdown in society.
  The biggest challenge if not at local level but certainly at national level in politics is the party system , where those elected lose sight of what those who elected want and pursure party politics which more often than not works against local issues and needs and leads to less interest in voting and more local disatisfaction.
  The noiseiest and most vociferous start 'ruling the roost ' to the majorities disadvantage. those elected need to be able to take decisions on an informed basis and have them upheld not constantly challenged by any with an axe to grind.
  communities need to recognise that in voting for Councillors they are appointing someone to represent their interests and others iin the community by a majority and sometimes that will mean that they will have to live with decisions they don't like!

  Euan Hall on 10 Mar 2009

• There are indeed two sides to this debate.
  
  On the one side - Bedfodshire is still has "Three Tier" Education as a result of a very powerful lobby of relatively few residents affecting in the main newly elected councillors. Their concern to ensure that their children were not subjected to managed change blighted our ability to bring extra benefits to children right across Bedfordshire covering a much wider age range!
  
  On the other side there are over 40,000 out of District commuters in South Beds affected by the Government enforcing a house build rate of 1,000 new homes a year in an area where the massive infrastructure was recognised over 20 years ago and commitments to deliver have still not started.
  
  Far too many young folk who have to commute south to jobs that can service a Beds Mortgage find that both partners are away from home fo 12 hours or so with ever increasing commuting times. The very couples we want to have families find that this no environment for young children.
  
  This affects the mix of children in oiur schools, the percentage of folk on benefits and the very sustainablity of a community that has lost a net overage of over 500 local jobs a year since 2001!
  
  Ten or more Parish Councils and a "LOUD" Campaign in Leighton Buzzard representing10,500 residents have had no effect so far.
  
  The position worsens faster each year as the damaging effect on the community is exponential.
  
  All of this developoment is contrary to Regional and LAA Strategies for Sustainable Communities.
  
  Government duplicity on this matter is one of the reasons why they have no local credibility - unfortunately this extends to Local Govt too - where residents feel their wellbeing has not been protected - in the way strategies we all worked so hard to put togetjer are just ignored.
  
  Scrutiny that exposes this drama is not fully supported and this leads to yet further resident frustration.
  
  Very difficult to see how they will reflect this in the ballot box as all levels of Govt have lost credibility as a consequence.

  Rhys Goodwin on 12 Mar 2009

• Mike Allen makes some very useful points and also describes a means to bridge the gap between Councillors and the involvment of local residents. To quote:
  
  "We have Area Committees and Community Forums which are closer to local people's views, and although the process may not always produce what we desire, it works well and is far less frustrating than many alternatives - and ultimately far more democratic too".
  
  Give or take one or two points I think these ideas can be generally used to good effect.
  
  Remember too, if we wish to engage young voters (we really do), then an IT based local forum system will be a useful add-on. Notwithstanding the fact that such means are more widely used by their elders also these days.

  John Charlesworth on 12 Mar 2009

• As JFK famously said; 'Twenty-five per cent of the people will vote against anything.' Nowadays that minority is likely to get its way. Take the summer Picnic Concerts at London's Kenwood House. For more than 50 years they have given pleasure to many, many thousands. Thanks to complaints from a small number of local residents concerning noise and traffic, they were cancelled in 2007. The concerts continued last season, not in the superb Lakeside Bowl (built in 1951) but in a tent with poor sound and no fireworks. A good example of community empowerment or pure Nimbyism?

  Alan Chappell on 13 Mar 2009

• It is unhelpful to perceive the role of councillors and the roles played by community members as in competition with each other. In my experience it is when they begin to understand each other and the different opportunities and limitations they each face, that community needs are more likely to be successfully met. We know that many people resist taking part in formal democratic processes - many not bothering to vote and fewer and fewer people wanting to stand for election. And yet we also know that people are just as interested in particular issues as they ever were. Surely we have a duty to encourage and support greater active involvement if there is to be any future for representative democracy.
  
  Community activists must be the only group of people who are vilified when they become knowledgeable, skilled and experienced. The term usual suspects is used almost as a term of abuse. My great concern is that there aren't enough usual suspects - we need to be providing greater resources to support people to get involved, to understand how to work effectively with others and to act in a more powerful way.

  Mandy Wilson on 17 Mar 2009

• The whole subject matter revolves around blinkered the atypical councillor's attitude "we know what the community wants as they voted us in" and the ever present party political thinking that has polluted politics particularly local politics for too long, no matter the morality or ethics of the individual case no council or central government can truly say they are democratic, case in point our current PM, yes the electorate vote for their councillor or MP but how often are the controversial subjects discussed or policy decisions implemented within 3 months of an election rarely if ever or more accurately NEVER,the right for the duly elected member to a free and fair vote is too often usurped by being made to follow the party line. So until we can genuinely come up with a solution that allows true community involvement and accounts for all.... the apathetic the NIMBY's (read more vociferous members of society) and those that have a genuine concern or grievance regarding a decision or policy we are never going to make a bad situation any better, perhaps the idea of selective referenda is the way to proceed but in all honesty can anyone contributing really see a local authority or central government having the bottle to try it

  Stuart Wilson on 27 Mar 2009

• Surely the community can "be empowered" by influencing decision-making through their democratically elected and statutory body "The Parish or Town Council".
  
  The waters become hugely "muddied" with what some may term "splinter groups" muscling in, often with a personal agenda rather than a community representational view or agenda

  Rusty Adams on 27 Mar 2009

• In this context and quite a number of others I think we have a considerable problem in the UK that needs to be overcome because it is leading to weak decision making and wasting money. There is pressure all the time to communicate and engage with stakeholders. This leads on to pressure to take into account the views expressed during such engagement. This in turn creates pressure to compromise. But then, most of all, a manager / politician who nonetheless holds an absolute view on an issue that is at odds with the gathering concensus / compromise is seen as being offensive. The pressure is to reach a reservationist rather than absolute position on most issues. Of course sometimes a reservationist outcome is right but also very often a leader simply making the right decision because it is right should be given due respect.

  Warren Park on 27 Mar 2009

• In the UK we have a significant growing problem that affects public decision making. It is the trend towards reservationism and the rejection of absolutism in decision making. There is pressure to engage and consult. This leads to pressure to accept the consultation and engagement outcomes through compromise. Hence the decision making is reservationist - designed not to offend anyone. On the other hand a manager or politician may have a view that another more absolute decision is the right one to take. But their view, if they don't compromise, will be seen as offensive and challenged as wrong. But in making some key decisions it is just right that a leading person or small group appointed or elected for the purpose makes a decision. They should take into account what is relevant, discard what is irrelevant and not act unreasonably. But they should just get on with it.

  Warren Park on 27 Mar 2009

• Of course a disproportionate influence by a minority is bad (any minority including an elected elite). But it does not follow that a community should be 'disempowered' or disabled to prevent this.
  
  Broad based empowerment and participation is essential to prevent apathy, create consensus and reverse hostility to elected representation.

  Andrew Climo on 30 Mar 2009